That didn't take long. The same week that President Obama promised (again) that "95% of working families" would not see their taxes rise by "a single dime," his own budget reveals that taxes will rise for 100% of everyone for the sake of global warming. Ahem. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
This Wall Street Journal editorial is of quality, but not high quality. They argue Obama's budget plan will raise taxes on 100% Americans, but never offer us enough clear definitions and facts to, first, make clear what they are talking about and, two, make a convincing case that Obama's (and McCain endorsed) cap and trade program is really a "tax," and one that will be paid by "all Americans."
Personally, I don't see taxes as always an evil or even usually an evil, but are often justified and for a valuable common good. They may often be unfortunate and unjustified, too, but all American presidents and legislators of both parties from the inception of our country have used taxation to raise needed funds for the common good (e.g., defense of country) and as economic and political incentives (tax breaks) and disincentives. The "taxation is always bad" thinking is lunacy, the ... More »
This is a silly tirade about a serious subject. Obviously the whole point of cap and trade is not to raise revenues but to provide a financial incentive to those who develop more efficient procedures. The Obama administration has stated its commitment to building such green industry in the US.
The cap and trade system, while by no means perfect, creates financial carrots and sticks to those who are more efficient, and those who are not. Due to the increased cost of purchasing from those in the same industry who use more carbon, consumer behavior will become aligned with our energy needs. It is strange that the WSJ, which fancies itself a mouthpiece for US business, writes an editorial that assumes that no one will innovate their way into the position of actually ... More »
I think this is a strong opinion piece. However, it fails to address the rationale for cap-and-trade revenue, and it even fails to mention what the revenue-generating condition(s) and event(s) will be. So it gives exceptionally little basis for anyone to form an opinion on the merits of the policy; readers are supplied only with a rationale for deeming it a "tax". Since it serves the needs only of those who have no other information about the revenue purpose/effect of the cap-and-trade policy, and of those who condemn all things labeled "tax", it achieves little as journalism.
It may be NewsTrust's fault and not the WSJ's, but I don't know whether a piece labeled (in fine print) "Review and Outlook" is a WSJ editorial, an OpEd of some kind (no blurb on any author), or a news analysis article (its NewsTrust tab is labeled "Article"). It is certainly not a fact report. Besides my unease as to its purported category, I am unhappy that they assume that it's bad policy if the label "tax" fits, and I'm unhappy that they assume it is an intentional deception. ... More »
Retrieving Comments
